Obama’s Campaign Proves Race Still Matters

Surprised? Well, you shouldn’t be. In spite of the fact that the New York Times just this week featured a story about “race and electability” on page one, and in spite of the fact that the Wall Street Journal just this week ran an editorial that claimed to “continue to believe Americans are ready to support a black candidate for President,” there were questions all along. In fact, since the proverbial day one, there was reason to think that despite Barack Obama’s remarkable race for the White House, hiding behind the hoo-ha were racial preferences, most importantly for white over black candidates.

Only now, though, are Democrats seriously worried. In the wake of Obama’s decisive defeat in the Pennsylvania primary, not to speak of the resurfacing of Rev. Wright, even some of his most devoted disciples are acknowledging that race might play a part, among blue-collar voters, older voters, and Catholic voters in particular. If David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political adviser, is willing now to concede that an African-American by the name of Barack Obama represents “a lot of change,” you can be sure that Democrats nationwide are scared silly that come November a black man will lose to a white man by the name of John McCain.

Whatever the hand-wringing in recent days, for months, for years even, there has been evidence of a disconnect between what at least some voters say, and what they do. More precisely, there has been evidence that the so-called “Bradley effect” lingers, which is to say that under certain circumstances white voters are less likely to vote for black candidates than they are willing or perhaps able to admit to pollsters. (The term “Bradley effect” is derived from the 1982 California gubernatorial campaign. The black candidate for governor, longtime Mayor of Los Angeles, Thomas Bradley, narrowly lost to his white opponent, George Deukmejian, even though polls taken right up to Election Day showed Bradley with a clear lead.)

The implication of the Bradley effect is not necessarily that voters deliberately lie to pollsters. In fact, as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) seems to suggest, the problem might be that we do not know what we think and feel or, at least, we do not know what we think and feel at the deepest level. The IAT is a test of international repute that was developed over a decade ago by Anthony Greenwald, a psychologist at the University of Washington. It reveals differences between attitudes we hold consciously, and those we hold unconsciously. While the IAT is not without its detractors, it has been taken by more than seven million people around the world, and is widely used by researchers to uncover unconscious biases, especially as they pertain to hot button issues such as race and gender. What Greenwald and his associates predicted even before the first caucus in Iowa, was that past pattern, in which polls tended to overestimate voter support for black candidates, might well repeat this year.

Sure enough, in an article published in March by Pew Research, Greenwald and coauthor Bethany Albertson reported that in certain states, those with relatively low black populations (New Hampshire, California, and Massachusetts), pre-election polls exaggerated the level of support for Barack Obama. But, they also found that in states with relatively high black populations (South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia), pre-primary polls tended to underestimate the level of support for Obama, thereby giving evidence of what they called the “reverse” Bradley effect.

What then can we reasonably conclude? First, that many of us have been kidding ourselves – that in spite of Obama’s demonstrably wide appeal, race still matters more than we have been willing or able to admit. Second, that race matters in ways more complicated than we yet understand. Third, that race might matter more than gender. And finally, that given the U.S. population is less than 14 percent African-American any African-American candidate for president still has one hell of a steep hill to climb.

Barbara Kellerman is the James MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Public Leadership at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and is author and editor of many books and articles on leadership.

Partner Center

The email and password entered aren’t matching to our records. Please try again, or reset your password. If you have a username from our previous site, start by using that. Please See our FAQ for more.

If you are signing in for the first time on the new HBR.org but have an existing account, please enter your existing user name and password to migrate your account.Please see Frequently Asked Questions for more information.